Disabled Armor-Indirect by the Map-and more about Gardening Later

Dan Caviness · 12-21-2009, 03:15 AM,

I'll dig up an official army report I found online a long time ago....I believe the official US Army estimate...for that report...that part of the war....that time of the war...and that particular division...was acknowledged to be 4 percent.
So...we may be about right?

Hawk...I hear you man. It seems that for my rolls lately the disrupt is totally absent and disables are all I'm seeing...is it possible they reduced the disrupt or transferred that effect/result to become a disable?

Regards,

Dan

Hawk Kriegsman · (This post was last modified: 12-21-2009, 05:20 AM by Hawk Kriegsman.)

Dan Caviness Wrote:Hawk...I hear you man. It seems that for my rolls lately the disrupt is totally absent and disables are all I'm seeing...is it possible they reduced the disrupt or transferred that effect/result to become a disable?

Regards,

Dan

Hello Dan,

Yes I see disables run in spurts myself. I go along time without any and them wham a bunch in a turn.

The disable is a straight 5%, while the disruptions are based on the fire tables. So no change in the distuption chances to the best of my knowledge.

Jason Petho could comment with more authority though.

Thanx!

Hawk

**Jason Petho** · 12-21-2009, 05:43 AM,

Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:The disable is a straight 5%, while the disruptions are based on the fire tables. So no change in the distuption chances to the best of my knowledge.

Disable with the 1.04 UPDATE was reduced to 4%.

No changes were made to the Combat Results Table.

Jason Petho

K K Rossokolski · 12-21-2009, 05:43 AM,

Surely the key here is not whether people "feel" that a certain outcome is too much/too little, but whether there is actual quantitative battle experience. I draw your attention to Eastern Front II User Guide pp214-5, which cites some British experience, suggesting HE was the cause of of a tank casualty in 3% of cases.

Hawk Kriegsman · 12-21-2009, 05:50 AM,

Jason Petho Wrote:
Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:The disable is a straight 5%, while the disruptions are based on the fire tables. So no change in the distuption chances to the best of my knowledge.

Disable with the 1.04 UPDATE was reduced to 4%.

No changes were made to the Combat Results Table.

Jason Petho

Thank You Jason.

4% seems to work very well.

Hawk

Hawk Kriegsman · 12-21-2009, 05:57 AM,

K K Rossokolski Wrote:Surely the key here is not whether people "feel" that a certain outcome is too much/too little, but whether there is actual quantitative battle experience.

Agreed Rod, based on actual results. 2% from the original game was too low.

Quote:I draw your attention to Eastern Front II User Guide pp214-5, which cites some British experience, suggesting HE was the cause of of a tank casualty in 3% of cases.

I would suspect that number being correct in the Brits case and I suspect possibly for the Americans too. It was most likey higher for the Germans and the Russians however.

I believe the outright kill rate (not a disabled result) happens around 1 to 2% of the tiem from indirect artillry.

This is techincally different than a disabled result.

A disabled tank has the capacity to be repared (outside the game's scope), while a destroyed tank is unusable.

Maybe the way to go is to award only half points for a disabled tank (rounded up). You still lose it for the game but in an operational sense it can be fixed.

Probably a nightmare to program however.

Thanx!

Hawk

K K Rossokolski · 12-21-2009, 06:18 AM,

On a related note....tank reliability. Even cursory reading on the Western Desert will reveal that the British cruiser tanks, in particular the Crusader, were notoriously subject to breakdown, whereas the Stuart was the opposite....thus in part the Brit nickname "Honey."
If the game were able to simulate this ...a dice throw perhaps... it would add further uncertainty into the realm of chaos.

Tt would of course require some stats to simulate, and would need to apply to all tanks. I have only seen bland qualititave statements such as "a high %age of Crusaders were out of action for mechanical problems".

K K Rossokolski · 12-21-2009, 06:22 AM,

"I would suspect that number being correct in the Brits case and I suspect possibly for the Americans too. It was most likey higher for the Germans and the Russians however."

Why so, Hawk?

Crossroads · 12-21-2009, 06:26 AM,

The current ratio seems quite realistic IMHO, I do not have any statistics so am talking about gut feeling of course.

I have a few books written as personal diaries of having served in tanks. A lot of casualties when crews were not expecting arty barrages and were caught outside their vehicles. Also cases where tanks were abandonded as crews bailed out expecting a AP hit and shells/gasoline exploding. Infantry fire then meant there was no way to return to tanks.

That would seem to cover the unexpected barrages in rear positions as well those buttoned up in front getting hit.

As a separate note for tanks breaking down while in transport. I would politely comment this to be quite harsh, as most scenarios last only 1,5 to 3 hours, and the units represent platoons...

I am an arty guy myself, so of course expect some effects from the hard work of my collegues-of-past.

Crossroads · 12-21-2009, 06:30 AM,

K K Rossokolski Wrote:"I would suspect that number being correct in the Brits case and I suspect possibly for the Americans too. It was most likey higher for the Germans and the Russians however."

Can't comment about Russians casualties but have again read about Finnish armour immediately under all sort of direct and undirect arty, small caliber to heavy shelling when spotted by Russians, making it very difficult to operate.